The expats will rule Singapore.....

Adam Khoo: The expats will rule Singapore
Posted by admin 28 January, 2010
I have a prediction. My prediction is that in a couple of years, the expatriates (from China , India , US etc...) will rule Singapore . They will increasingly take on more leadership roles of CEOs, directors, heads of organizations, award winners etc... If you observe closely, it is already happening now.
Last year ' s top PSLE (Primary School Leaving Exam) student is a China National. Most of the deans list students and first class honours students in the local universities are foreigners and more and more CEOs, even that of go vernment link corporations are expats. The top players in our National teams are expats.
As a Singaporean, I am not complaining. I think that in a meritocratic society like Singapore , it is only fair that the very best get rewarded, no matter their race, religion or nationality. Like Lee Kwan Yew said, I rather have these talented and driven people be on our team contributing to our nation than against us from their home country. The question I have been asking is, ' why are the expats beating the crap out of Singaporeans?
What I noticed is that these expats have a very important quality that many Singaporeans (especially the new Y generation lack). It is a quality that our grandfathers and great-grandfathers (who came from distant lands) had that turned Singapore from a fishing village to the third richest country in the world (according to GDP per capita). Unfortunately, I fear this quality is soon disappearing from the new generation of Singaporeans. This quality is the HUNGER FOR SUCCESS and the FIGHTING SPIRIT!!!
Expats who come here today have the same tremendous HUNGER for success that our grandfathers had. They are willing to sacrifice, work hard and pay the price to succeed. They also believe that no one owes them a living and they have to work hard for themselves. They also bring with them the humility and willingness to learn.
Take the case of Qui Biqing, the girl from Qifa Primary school who topped the whole of Singapore in last year ' s PSLE with a score of 290. When she came to Singapore 3 years ago from China , she could hardly speak a word of English and didn ' t even understand what a thermometer was. Although she was 10 years old, MOE recommended she start at Primary 2 because of her lack of English proficiency. After appealing, she managed to start in Primary 3. While most Singaporeans have a head start of learning English at pre-school at the age of 3-4 years old, she only started at age 10.. Despite this handicapped, she had the drive to read continuously and practice her speaking and writing skills, eventually scoring an A-star in English! This Hunger and drive can also be seen in the workforce. I hate to say this but in a way, I sometimes think expats create more value than locals.
Expats are willing to work long hours, go the extra mile, are fiercely loyal to you and don ' t complain so much. They also come a lot more qualified and do not ask the moon for the remuneration. Recently, I placedan ad for a marketing executive. Out of 100+ resumes, more than 60% came from expats. While locals fresh grads are asking for $2,500+ per month, I have expats with masters degrees from good universities willing to get less than $2,000! They know that if they can come in and learn and work hard, they will eventually climb up and earn alot more. They are willing to invest in themselves, pay the price for future rewards. Sometimes I wonder how some of the locals are going to compete with this.
Of course, this is just a generalization. There ARE definitely some Singaporeans who create lots of value and show fighting spirit.
Unfortunately, I have found that more and more young Singaporeans lack this hunger for success. Instead, they like to complain, blame circumstances and wait for others to push them. Some hold on to the attitude that the world owes them a living. I shake my head when I see local kids nowadays complain that they don ' t have the latest handphones, branded clothes and games. While I acknowledge that the kids of today are much smarter and well informed than I was at their age (my 4 year old daughter can use my Mac book computer and my iphone), I find that they lack the resilience and tenacity they need to survive in the new economy. Some kids nowadays tend to give up easily once they find that things get tough and demand instant gratification. When they have to work first to get rewards later, many tend to lack the patience to follow through.
So, how did this happen? Why is our nation of hardworking, hungry fighters slowly becoming a nation of complaining softies? I think the problem is that life in Singapore has been too good and comfortable. Kids today have never seen hunger, poverty, war and disasters. What makes it worse is that parents nowadays give kids everything they want and over protect them from hardship and failure. Parents often ask me why their kids lack the motivation to study and excel. My answer to them is because they already have everything! Giving someone everything they want is the best way to kill their motivation. What reason is there for them to fight to become the best when they are already given the best from their parents without having to earn it?
It reminds me of the cartoon movie MADAGASCAR where Alex the Lion and his animal friends were born and raised in the Central Park Zoo. They were well taken care of and provided with processed food and an artificial jungle. When they escaped to Africa , they found that they could barely survive in the wild with the other animals because they had lots their instincts to fight and hunt for food. They could only dance and sing.
I see the same thing in the hundreds of seminars and training programmes I conduct. I see increasing more and more expats attending my Wealth Academy and Patterns of Excellence programme in Singapore . Not surprisingly, they are always the first to grab the microphone to answer and ask questions.
While many of the locals come in late and sit at the back. The expats (especially those from India and China ) always sit at the front, take notes ferociously and stay back way after the programme is over to ask questions. I feel ashamed sometimes when I ask for volunteers to ask questions, and the Singaporeans keep quiet, while the foreigners fight for the opportunity.
For my "I Am Gifted! ' programme for students, I have the privilege to travel & conduct it in seven countries (Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia etc...) and see students from all over. Is there a big difference in their attitude and behaviour? You bet!
Again, I feel really sad that in Singapore , most students who come are usually forced by their parents to come and improve themselves, Some parents even bribe them with computer games and new handphones to attend.
During the course, some adopt the ' I know everything ' attitude and lack the interest to succeed until I kick their butts. It is so different when I go to Malaysia , Indonesia and once in India . The kids there ask their parents to send them to my programme They clap and cheer enthusiastically when the teachers enter the room and participate so willingly when lessons are on. I still scratch my head and wonder what happened to my fellow Singaporeans to this day.
So mark my words, unless the new generation of Singaporeans wake up and get out of their happy over protected bubble and start fighting for their future, the expats (like our great grandfathers) will soon be the rulers of the country. At the rate at which talented and hungry expats are climbing up, our future prime minister may be an Indian or China PR or may even be an Ang Moh!

Censorship is Self-defeating (Passage 5)

April 8, 2006
Censorship is self-defeating. It's better to educate people about responsibility

Not too long ago, Singaporeans were enticed by the idea of a nation-wide broadband network. We were told that such an infrastructure would keep Singapore in pace with rapid technological change and provide us with a competitive advantage.

Ultimately, it would bring us a step closer to our goal of being a knowledge hub where ideas flourish and flow freely.

Now the Government prohibits podcasting and videocasting for the dissemination of political content during the coming elections. In addition, bloggers who "persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore" are required to register their websites.

Notwithstanding the definition issues thrown up by the new guidelines, a palpable irony colours the Government's approach towards internet technology.

This irony is perhaps best explained by drawing the distinction between commercial and political free speech. The more liberal internet policy is tailored specifically towards the promotion of a freer and more vibrant business environment.

However, when politics is concerned, the noisy marketplace of ideas which the internet engineers is apparently an affront to the seriousness in which the Government deals with its political affairs.

To invoke political seriousness as a justification for curbing free expression is a feeble discourse. It implicitly suggests that the Government does not trust its people to be accountable for their political views and discerning in their political judgment.

More significantly, there is a lack of interest to ascertain what might or might not be politically serious. This is evident from the recent restrictions in electioneering introduced by the Government.

It is easy to understand why many wonder if political seriousness is merely a foil for a more systematic repression of political free speech.

No doubt freedom has its price. There will inevitably be cases where individuals abuse their rights to disparage politics in this country. Question is, do we sink in despondency over a few bad apples or focus on the good that the rest of the orchard brings?

I believe the answer is obvious. Free speech unhampered by the chilling fear of legal sanctions promotes political pluralism and gives legitimacy to our status as a democratic nation.

The Government will find it increasingly difficult to maintain its two-sided approach on internet control. As it increases the ubiquity of the internet to spur economic development, a barrage of political ideas in its various technological forms will follow in its wake.

To exercise quality control over political speech by introducing sweeping censorship measures will in time prove to be self-defeating.

I think we're better off educating our population to be "responsible moral agents" than to punish them for breaking the inhibitions imposed by the state on their right to free speech.

David Cai
(An undergraduate in Melbourne)

Censorship is Singapore (Passage 4)

JULY 12, 2003 – Straits Times
INSIGHT: Gum, gays and the goggle box: Time to consider a U-turn

THINKING ALOUD

CHEWING gum, gay rights and satellite dishes.

It's time for a U-turn on these policies.

Not only because gum-chewers, homosexuals and television viewers stand to benefit from the changes.

Rather, the whole of Singapore society will benefit.

Gum, gays and satellite TV can be considered 'leading indicators' of Singapore's socio-political climate. Changing these signals to Singaporeans and foreigners a sea change in the environment.

The long-standing policies that restricted all three have several things in common.

First, they curb minority interests for the sake of the majority.

The import and sale of gum in Singapore was banned in 1992 because of the cost of cleaning up gum spat out in public transport systems.

In one fell stroke, an administrative headache for public transport operators, which was also a public nuisance for the majority, was cured by the ban on gum.

Criminalising consensual sexual acts between gay adults is another example of sacrificing minority interests to satisfy the majority.

The other common thread: The paternalistic assumption that the state must be an arbiter of the public's morals.

Privately-owned satellite dishes are banned because of concern over access to unsavoury entertainment and information. Legal strictures against homosexual behaviour aim to 'protect' the majority from being offended by such behaviour.

But should the state determine private morals? Should minority interests be set aside for the majority?

Instead of lending its coercive power to support intolerance by the majority, which would be quite alien to Singapore's tradition of social harmony, the state should instead consider taking a lead in supporting tolerance and openness by reversing the three bans.

The advantage of changing tack on these issues, which have become icons, extends beyond Singapore's shores.

The ban on chewing gum put Singapore in the news a decade ago, and continues to be cited as an example of an authoritarian regime and communitarian society.

The ban on privately-owned satellite dishes represents the state's attempt to regulate and censor content, another bugbear among liberal-minded commentators.

Icons are symbolic and represent more than themselves. Changing icons signals to the world at large, and Singaporeans themselves, that a new epoch is in the making.

For example, the decision to allow a Hyde Park-style Speakers' Corner was interpreted by Singaporean and foreign observers alike as a harbinger of a more open society.

Sceptics will ask: Why bother to change icons unless the whole tenor of society changes with it? Isn't there moral hypocrisy in relaxing a few bans, unless there is a deep-seated change in mindset?

The answer: Icons matter in shaping perceptions, and perceptions matter in the battle for talent and investments.

As PricewaterhouseCoopers' Marcel Fenez noted recently, in response to the announcement of the $100-million fillip for the media industry: Singapore must loosen censorship rules if it wants to be a global media city. It may have the right ingredients, but must also contend with 'external perceptions' when attracting investors.

Just what are some of those external perceptions?

Well, one quick way to figure this out is to look at the indices published by respected think-tanks, much in the same way that you would look at global competitiveness reports and GDP per capita rankings when assessing how investors view an economy.

The best-known freedom survey is devised by Freedom House, a leading democracy advocate group founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of former US president Franklin Roosevelt, nearly 60 years ago.

The latest 2003 Freedom House report ranks Singapore once again as a 'partly free' country, with a score of 4.5 (1 being most free and 7 being not free) that puts it in the company of Kuwait and Nigeria. It has dismal scores for political freedoms (5) and civil rights (4).

Hitherto, poor perceptions of Singapore's socio-political climate have not hindered its ability to generate real income growth.

But the negative perceptions may exact a higher cost in future, as they will certainly mar Singapore's ability to position itself as a creative talent capital and as a centre of innovation.

Changing external perceptions of Singapore will take a long time. But every journey begins with a small step. And small, significant steps are a good way to start.

As it is, the three policies highlighted have already been modified.

Selected brands of sugarless chewing gum will be imported and sold over the counter from January, in a compromise settlement reached under the Singapore-United States Free Trade Agreement, after gum-maker Wrigley's executives reportedly lobbied US Congress to insist on freer conditions of sale.

Instead of a partial relaxation, why not scrap the ban altogether, and see it as an opportunity to allow a more open - and hopefully more mature and less gum-littering - society to blossom?

Similarly, the ban on satellite dishes has already come under review by the Economic Restructuring Committee (ERC) last year.

Removing this barrier, and the implementation of other ERC recommendations for the infocommunications technology industry, could see jobs double to 227,000.

As for the policy on homosexuals, as Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong disclosed in a recent Time magazine interview, the public sector as an employer has stopped discriminating against gays, and has hired them even in sensitive positions.

There are grounds for taking the next step - allowing residents to use satellite dishes, and scrapping the archaic statute criminalising sexual acts between consenting adults.

Reversing these policies requires acts of leadership. They need not happen all at once, but rather after time and effort has been spent explaining the change to those perturbed by it.

After all, this Government has never been shy about exercising moral leadership.

In the three examples, the changes are incremental but significant, and have the potential to become rallying points to generate debate about a new, more open Singapore.

Change will turn the policies on chewing gum, satellite dishes and gays from being icons of intolerance and restrictions, into icons of openness and tolerance in a new, remade Singapore. There are dividends to be reaped from the change.

The writer is a Senior Correspondent. E-mail: muihoong@sph.com.sg

Source: http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2003/imp-104.htm

Is There Any Value in Censorship? (Passage 3)

MM - Is there any value in censorship?

Your Taboo, Not Mine From Time Magazine | Essay

The furor over cartoons of Muhammad reveals the zealot's double standard

By ANDREW SULLIVAN Posted Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006

The iconic image of last week was in the Gaza Strip. It was of a Palestinian gunman astride the local office of the European Union. All the diplomatic staff had fled, tipped off ahead of time. The source of the militant's ire? A series of satirical cartoons originally published in Denmark. Yes, cartoons.

A Danish paper, a while back, had commissioned a set of cartoons depicting the fear that many writers and artists in Europe feel when dealing with the subject of Islam. To Western eyes, the cartoons were not in any way remarkable. In fact, they were rather tame. One showed Muhammad with his turban depicted as a bomb--not exactly a fresh image to describe Islamic terrorism. Another used a simple graphic device: it showed Muhammad surrounded by two women in full Muslim garb, their eyes peering out from an oblong space in their black chadors. And on Muhammad's face there was an oblong too, blacking out his eyes. The point was that Islam has a blind spot when it comes to women's freedom. Crude but powerful: exactly what a political cartoon is supposed to be.

The result was an astonishing uproar in the Muslim world, one of those revealing moments when the gulf between our world and theirs seems unbridgeable. Boycotts of European goods are in force; demonstrators in London held up signs proclaiming EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM and BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST; the editor of the French newspaper France-Soir was fired for reprinting the drawings; Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the publication; and protesters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus. The Egyptian ambassador to Denmark expressed disbelief that the government would not prevent further reprinting. Freedom of the press, the Egyptian explained, "means the whole story will continue and that we are back to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world."

Excuse me? In fact, the opposite is the case. The Muslim world needs to do something to appease the West. Since Ayatullah Khomeini declared a death sentence against Salman Rushdie for how he depicted Muhammad in his book The Satanic Verses, Islamic radicals have been essentially threatening the free discussion of their religion and politics in the West. Rushdie escaped with his life. But Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician who stood up against Muslim immigrant hostility to equality for women and gays, was murdered on the street. Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who offended strict Muslims, was killed thereafter. Several other Dutch politicians who have dared to criticize the intolerance of many Muslims live with police protection.

Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're blasphemy--the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.

Blasphemy, after all, is commonplace in the West. In America, Christians have become accustomed to artists' offending their religious symbols. They can protest, and cut off public funding--but the right of the individual to say or depict offensive messages or symbols is not really in dispute. Blasphemy, moreover, is common in the Muslim world, and sanctioned by Arab governments. The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that used in the Third Reich. But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis threaten the lives of Muslims because of it.

And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others and intimidation of free people.

Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable.

The Case Against Piracy (Passage 2)

Say No to Piracy

Making unauthorized copies of a software programme, a movie or a song is stealing.

When creators of movies, music and novels cannot make a living because of rampant piracy, the quantity, variety and quality of new movies, music and novels will be reduced.

Because technology makes the stealing intellectual property so easy and so safe and the fact that one can do it without fear of getting caught, the guilt that a normal crime could evoke is absent, and this is not right.

It is because we do not see the victim, we do not know how he or she is affected by acts of intellectual piracy, we do not care.

One reason why we do not think nor create is that there is someone out there who has done the thinking for us and all we need to do is to is to use a search engine to locate the idea and copy it. It is no wonder then that we have become more intellectually lazy and less original.

When you purchase counterfeit products the money goes directly into the pockets of the pirates. Who do you prefer to support? Pirates and crooks or legitimate businessmen? It is a fact that the pirated copy is a lot cheaper and this may be a major consideration for you but remember that you may well be getting a very inferior product for this money.

Original computer products come with guarantees of quality, support and upgrades. What do you get with pirated products?

The price of software is high partly because the producers need to ensure that the limited copies they sell will be sufficient to cover authoring, producing and distribution costs. If large companies do not have to pay the billions of dollars they are paying to ensure that copyright materials are being protected, the price of software and other products can be substantially lowered. Thus by engaging in illegal copying, you are actually keeping prices high for the buyer of legal copies.

"I am only making one illegal copy for myself. It is not like I am making thousands for sale and distribution." If millions of people think this way, then only one copy of the original will be sold.

If you love watching exciting shows like the X-Men movies then you should ensure that more movies in this series can be made by giving the actors, producers etc their due. Deprive them of their livelihood and the series will come to an abrupt end. Will this benefit you?

It's not hard to see what attracts criminals to the software racket. A drug dealer pays about $47,000 for a kilo of cocaine, and can sell it on the street for about $94,000, a 100% profit. But for the same outlay of $47,000 — and a lot less risk — an enterprising crook can buy 1,500 pirated copies of Office 2000 Professional and resell them for a profit of 900%. (Time, Nov 8 ,2002)

Why we exercise copyright, however, and we don’t put it in the public domain, we have a fairly sophisticated licensing procedure, is actually to protect the integrity and accuracy of our information….people can rely on the information they receive from us. It also enables us, if we are licensing on the Internet, to withdraw that information when it becomes out-of-date and when a new version is available. (WHO spokesman, 21-22-Feb 2002, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights)

Still, someone not having the money to buy the game is not excuse to use a hack. Now, suppose you go to a store and really want to buy a game, but don't have the money. Is the store going to let you have it for free? No! In my opinion, using a hack is almost exactly the same as stealing. So really, I don't see what's so 'honest' as some people say about hacking. It's stealing, plain and simple, at least in my opinion. (Bulletin board contributor)

I certainly do not condone software piracy. People should be paid for their work. But ethics is a dual edged sword ... You can only expect others to be ethical towards you if you yourself are ethical. We would be remiss in discussing the ethics of those who make so much money in the software business. ((Bulletin board contributor)

Discussion:

What are some arguments against the copyright laws?

Should intellectual and creative works be protected? How?

New Media Same Rules (Passage 1)

Straits Times
Saturday, April 15, 2006

April 15, 2006
New media, same rules
In an e-mail interview with Sue-ann Chia, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang gives an insight into the thinking behind the PAP Government's stand on blogs, podcasts and videocasts which contain election issues and what it regards as permissible and what is not. The lack of accountability and the irrational emotions they can whip up is what concerns the Government. But that does not mean it will not keep up with technological change and learn from the experience of other countries.

· One argument the Government has made is that politics is a serious business and should not descend into entertainment. How so?

We encourage the free flow of information and exchange of views within our political system. However, for political debates and discourse to be constructive and taken seriously, people have to take responsibility for what they say and should not remain anonymous. Facts must be ascertainable and arguments examined.

Voters can then consider the issues calmly and rationally with a view to the impact on their future, and not get carried away by emotions in the heat of the moment. This is the basis on which we run elections and politics in Singapore, and this is how we have crafted our rules.

For example, there is full freedom to write or publish anything you like and to voice your beliefs and convictions at election rallies, subject to defamation, sedition and other laws of the land. But political campaigning should not be turned into info-tainment, where the line between fact and fiction gets blurred, and people get worked up emotionally without understanding the substantive issues. This is why we do not allow music and entertainment at election rallies, unlike the practice in other countries.

For the same reason, we have not allowed party political films and videos. The impact of watching a video is very different from reading something in cold print. Political videos may be presented as objective documentaries, but are in fact slanted propaganda to draw attention and score political points.

For example, the film Fahrenheit 9/11 was released as a documentary but its selective use of images and out-of-context quotations were designed to shock the audience and make President Bush look bad. Such videos cannot be easily countered with rational written arguments. They evoke visceral emotions and are not conducive to a calm and dispassionate treatment of politics.

· Why is streaming of explicit political content through podcasts or videocasts not allowed but posting of party manifesto and texts of rally speeches allowed for political parties? What is the worry?

The Internet is a new medium, but the key issues are the same, and so we apply the same principles to address them. This is why we allow texts, party manifestos, candidates' write-ups and photos to be posted on the Internet in the same way that they are allowed in the print media.

Podcasts and videocasts, on the other hand, have a greater impact because of the nature of the medium. They have the greater power to influence. Hence, we do not allow podcasts and videocasts for election advertising, just as we do not allow party political films and videos.

The Internet has its own unique characteristics which require special attention. The Internet is ubiquitous, fast and anonymous. Once a false story or rumour is started on the Internet, it is almost impossible to put it right. Despite its usefulness, the Internet is chaotic and disorganised, with many half-truths and untruths masquerading as facts.

This is not theoretical; it has already occurred. Shortly after we announced Zaqy Mohamad in the line-up of new PAP candidates, there were netters who said that he was a nephew of Speaker of Parliament Abdullah Tarmugi, and this spread quickly on the Internet.

In fact, this is completely untrue, but how do we now rebut it on the Internet, and get all the blogs, bulletin boards and chatrooms to put out corrections to set this right? In this case, it is not an important issue, but if it involves emotive issues of race, language or religion, then it can easily destabilise our society. So we must be very careful and set rules so that individuals take responsibility for their actions.

To help bring some order to this chaotic environment, we have made it a requirement for political parties and individuals who use websites to propagate or promote political issues to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA). This promotes accountability and also ensures personal responsibility for comments made on the Internet.

Other countries are also grappling with similar issues. In the last US presidential elections, for example, there were vitriolic Internet campaigns against the two candidates, John Kerry and George Bush. One group tried to discredit Kerry's war record, while another accused Bush of dodging the Vietnam War draft. But those who propagated the personal attacks through their websites were never asked to account for what they said.

By registering political sites, we can avoid a similar situation from happening in Singapore. In this way, we uphold the seriousness and integrity of our electoral process.

· Can we really have effective controls over the Internet?

I agree that the controls are not water-tight. The virtual nature of the Internet and its global scale make regulation difficult. But rules do have some effect. They set a certain standard and help maintain order and accountability in the way political issues are discussed over the Internet. There will always be grey areas but these rules will help define unacceptable practices.

· Will there be new laws to keep up with changing technologies? What would these changes be?

Our position is dynamic as technology is advancing rapidly. We now have broadband and 3G, and people are connected everywhere they go. As the situation evolves, we will have to update our position accordingly. We are constantly reviewing our rules, and by the next election, I am sure we will have them updated to deal with a different environment.

But we will move cautiously, and learn from the experience of other countries. As we feel our way forward, we will continue to take steps to enhance the quality of political debate and preserve the choice that Singaporeans have when it comes to elections.

· The opposition parties have slammed the latest announcement disallowing podcasting and videocasting. They said that it is meant to limit the audience for their rallies and hence hamstring their chances of reaching out to more voters. What's your response?

In fact, the restrictions on political films and videos pose more disadvantages for the PAP than for the opposition. If the PAP were to make a political video, it has the resources to do a first-class production. But we decided against this, as it could demean the spirit of political debate and undermine the longer-term interest of Singapore.

I am also surprised that the opposition parties feel that their plans have been disrupted. This is not a ban that came out of the blue. All these parties had to do was to check the positive list to see what is allowed and what is not allowed. The regulations have been available since the last General Election in 2001. The opposition parties are free to approach MDA or Mica for clarification, but have not done so.

(Note: The 'positive list' states what types of election advertising are allowed for political parties, candidates and election agents.)

· What if the blogger is anonymous or hosts his blog overseas? How do you get the blogger to register? How will registration be enforced given the proliferation of blogs? Who will monitor or police the blogs?

Underlying some of these questions is the issue of what happens when someone tries to influence the political process by attempting to host websites anonymously or from overseas locations. This is a possibility that cannot be dismissed. MDA has oversight on these matters.

Where necessary, it will work in tandem with Mica and other relevant agencies. But we have always adopted a light touch for the Internet. So I will not lose much sleep over these scenarios. Internet users will just have to be more careful about putting their faith in the content of overseas websites. Singaporeans must also exercise judgment and avoid being taken in by those with an axe to grind or who are out to promote a hidden agenda.

· Can political parties mass e-mail/SMS to people? Are they, in these mass e-mails/SMS, allowed to advertise themselves and put out their party manifesto or send out their rally speeches? Can political parties and individuals send mass e-mail/SMS with pictures or videos of election rallies?

Political parties are allowed to send e-mails during the election period. This is on the positive list, but subject to certain restrictions. For example, they should clearly provide information that would enable a recipient to unsubscribe from the party's mailing list. In addition, parties are not allowed to solicit for donations through e-mail or to request the recipient to forward the e-mail to others.

As for individual SMSes and e-mails, we consider these as private communication and they will remain the private domain of individuals. I agree that some people may hide behind this facade of private communication and use e-mails, or a chain-mail system to conduct election advertising. But they should bear in mind that other laws also apply to e-mail communication. These include libel. One should not hastily dash off e-mails in the heat of the moment and live to regret a rash act later. So think first, and then write knowing fully the consequences of such comments.

· Can foreign based newspapers, especially online news sites, put up podcasts/videocasts of an explicit political nature on their websites? Can local newspapers and other mainstream media put up podcasts/vodcasts of election rallies?

The Parliamentary Elections Act makes specific exemptions which allow the publication of any news relating to an election in a newspaper in any medium or in a radio or television broadcast. If they choose to, they will be allowed to carry such materials in the form of videocasts and audiocasts on their websites.

Foreign news organisations will, of course, be allowed to report on the election. But there is a big difference between reporting on local affairs and interfering in them. We do not permit foreign news organisations operating in Singapore to participate or interfere in domestic politics. Singapore politics is for Singaporeans only. Should we find that a foreign newspaper or broadcaster has been inaccurate in its reporting or presented unfounded reports, we expect to be accorded the right of reply. I think this is a fair and reasonable thing to ask for. We are simply asking for journalistic integrity.

If a newspaper, for example, has published an unjustified comment, the very least that it should do is to let us present our side of the story and facts for their readers to be the judge.

If they are not prepared to give us this right of reply, then the Newspaper Printing and Publishing Act and the Broadcasting Act set out the sanctions which we can impose on the foreign media including restrictions to their circulation.

We welcome foreign media to Singapore. I hope that they understand our position on this matter and we can continue our amicable and mutually beneficial relationship.

sueann@sph.com.sg

Source: http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=43361

our new beginning

Hey S13, this is our new blog! We shall make this a blog where we post about anything and everything and not just about GP or what okay? Whenever you are free, or whenever you want to post something up here, just do it! This shall be our S13 blog. Let's start from here, and get close with each other okay? We're gonna be the best out of the best, and this applies for our results as well. We're gonna have the best friendships too!

Sometimes, we tend to only see the bad side of others but maybe it's time we change. Maybe when we see something wrong with that person, go and tell that person politely. For instance, if you wish that that particular someone should not talk during lecture, tell him politely. Don't SHHSSHHS him, cause that's annoying and insulting. And of course no "SHUT UP LA" too.

Anyways, let's all work together as one and work to our very best! Lastly, i'm the peer counselor in S13 so if you guys face any problems, feel free to come to me. I'd be glad to be able to help you. I'm friendly and approachable so, talk to me when you need a listening ear. (; I'm available most of the time except from 12am onwards cause i'd be having my beauty sleep. =D Talk to me okay? (: I LOVE 10S13!

P.S. whenever you post something, remember to leave your name! THANKS!

Grace

16th April 2010